The Doctrine of Death, Part 1

In our brief study of the Doctrine of Death, we will treat three aspects of the Biblical teaching:

1. The Nature of Death,

2. The Decisiveness of Death, and finally,

3. The Christian's Conquest of Death.

1. The NATURE of Death

The Bible uniformly describes death, not as a passing out of existence, but as a separation of two things.

Physical death is described as the separation of body and soul:

Genesis 35:18 – And as her soul was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin.

1 Kings 17:21 – Then he stretched himself upon the child three times and cried to the LORD, “O LORD my God, let this child’s life (נֶֽפֶשׁ־ - soul) come into him again.”

Matthew 10:28 – And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Spiritual death is a separation of man from God:

Isaiah 59:2 – but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear.

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 – They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.

Revelation 21:8 – the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.

2 Corinthians 5:1-9 For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him.

We will come back to the implicit victory/conquest of death described in this text, but let us notice for the meantime how death is depicted. It is a separation; it is a leaving behind; it is a putting off; a temporary nakedness. Perhaps the unpleasantness of this temporary unclothedness which Paul describes here is the NT counterpart to the several passages of the OT cited by folks showing the sense that OT saints had that death would issue them into a state of diminished closeness with God.

While we will live forever because we have immortal souls, we do not possess eternality in the sense which God does. The 6^th century theologian Boethius, describes God’s eternity as an “eternal present.” God’s eternity is not an infinite succession of moments. Our eternal life will be that way. This is the primary essential difference between our “eternal life” and God’s “eternal life.” Hence, it is completely understandable that the OT saints sensed a pang or longing for the closeness to God that would ultimately come when Christ’s mediatorial work was accomplished. Although they died in the grace of God, their existence in the state of death still entailed a lengthy wait for this work to be accomplished. Only then would they be ushered into the full “joy of the Lord,” that NT saints enter into immediately upon death.

This is why, although Christians do not fear death in the abstract, we all fear dying. The severing of body and soul is not pleasant regardless of the amount of physical pain involved in the actual process. Granted, dying “peacefully” in one’s sleep is less daunting than a slow agonizing death due to a deteriorating disease, nevertheless, no one relishes the actual “act” of death.

A Brief Survey of James, Part 2

A Brief Survey of James, Part 2

Theological Issues:

The primary, if not only, theological issue raised by the Epistle is James’ contention for “justification by works.”  All Christians, even Arminians, realize the need to harmonize, or synthesize, James’ statements with the apparently contradictory teaching of St. Paul.  Taking for granted the fundamental unity of God’s written word, we must assume different usage of the words “justification” and “faith” by the two authors.

Luther’s objection ("an Epistle of straw, and destitute of an evangelic character") was due to his mistaken idea that it[1] opposes the doctrine of justification by faith, and not by works, taught by Paul.  The two apostles perfectly harmonize because they are looking at justification from distinct standpoints.  Paul considers faith in the justification of the sinner before God, whereas James views it in the justification of the believer manifestly before men.  James confronts the Jewish error that the possession and knowledge of the Law would justify them even though they disobeyed.[2]  James 1:3; 4:1, 14 seem to allude to Romans 5:3; 6:13; 7:23; 14:4.  Plus the tenor of James 2:14-26 on justification seems to allude to Paul’s teaching – correcting false Jewish notions different from those Paul combated.  These errors, however, were not completely unnoticed by Paul.[3]  And, strangely enough, Luther clearly understood James’ point about the nature of faith.  In the preface to his commentary on Romans he asserts that it is “impossible to separate works from faith – yea, just as impossible as to separate burning and shining from fire.”[4]  This was the understanding of faith accepted by all the Reformers.  The seventeenth century Puritan writer Walter Marshall wrote: “Holiness… [as love of God and humankind] is considered, not as a means, but as a part, a distinguished part; or rather as the very central point in which all the means of grace, and all the ordinances of religion, terminate.”[5]

In illustration of James’ meaning concerning faith and works, we might consider the case of Noah.  He built the ark, we are told in Hebrews 11, by faith.  Had Noah’s faith been a purely notional assent to doctrinal propositions, he would have perished with the rest of the antediluvians.  There would exist no evidence of his “faith.”  While God may have seen such a faith, it would have remained unseen by men.  James calls such faith “dead.”  He does not say that the faith is unreal.  There is a world of difference between an imaginary friend and a corpse for a friend.  One does not exist; the other is only a shell of the real thing.  Paul calls such faith, “a form of godliness, denying the power thereof.”[6]

Two textual issues are of particular interest to this writer.  The first is Erasmus’ emendation of 4:2.  In the 1500’s, Erasmus edited the best Greek manuscripts of his day to retranslate the New Testament because of the terrible state of the extant copies of St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate.  So bad were the copies, Erasmus claims they gave birth to several doctrinal errors.  When he reached verse 2, he conjectured φθεiτε instead of φονεύετε.[7]  This changes the rendering from, “you kill and covet,” to, “you envy and covet.”  Erasmus may be correct.  Secondly, in 5:12, many old manuscripts have ἵνα μὴ ὑπὸκρίσιν instead of ὑπὸ
κρίσιν.[8]  The former reads, “So that you do not fall into hypocrisy.”  This would appear to be the correct rendering, considering the rest of the verse: multiplying our words beyond a simple, “Yes,” or, “No,” leads to hypocrisy.

Prophecy:

The destruction of Jerusalem seems to be foretold in James 5:1ff.  This was the way the passage was understood by the ante-Nicene Church.  The prophesied destruction ensued shortly after James’ martyrdom.  Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius relates that he was set on a pinnacle of the temple by the scribes and Pharisees, who begged him to restrain the people who were in large numbers embracing Christianity.  "Tell us," they said in the presence of the people gathered at the feast, "which is the door of Jesus?" James replied with a loud voice, "Why ask ye me concerning Jesus the Son of man?  He sitteth at the right hand of power, and will come again on the clouds of heaven."  Many thereupon cried, Hosanna to the Son of David.  But James was cast down headlong by the Pharisees; and praying, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."[9]  He was stoned and beaten to death with a fuller's club.  The Jews, as we know from Acts, were incensed at Paul's rescue from their hands, and therefore determined to wreak their vengeance on James.  The publication of his Epistle to the dispersed Israelites made him loathsome to them, especially to the higher classes, because it foretold the woes soon to fall on them and their country.  Their taunting question, "Which is the door of Jesus?" (i.e., by what door will He come when He returns?), alludes to his prophecy, "the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. . . behold the Judge standeth before the door"[10]   Hebrews 13:7 is probably an allusion to the martyrdom of James, who had been so long bishop over the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem, “Remember them that had the rule over you, men that spake unto you the word of God; and considering the issue of their life, imitate their faith."

Style:

The style of the Epistle is compact and terse.  The Epistle is pervaded by a Hebraic character, appearing in the occasional poetic parallelism.[11]  The images are analogical arguments, combining logic and poetry at the same time.  The Epistle is eloquent, yet persuasive at the same time.  It is similar in some respects to Matthew, the most Hebrew of the Gospels.  This is what we might expect from the bishop of Jerusalem writing to Israelites.  The doctrines of grace, the distinguishing features of Paul's teaching to the Hellenists and Gentiles, are less prominent as being already taught by that apostle. James complements Paul's teaching, and shows to the Jewish Christians who still kept the legal ordinances down to the fall of Jerusalem, the spiritual principle of the law, namely, love manifested in obedience.  The higher spirit of Christianity is seen putting the Jewish law in its proper place.  The Law is enforced in its everlasting spirit, not in the letter for which the Jews were so zealous.

---

[1] James 2:14-26

[2] Compare 1:22 with Rom 2:17-25).

[3] Rom 2:17ff.

[4] Luther, Martin – Commentary on Romans, Preface

[5] Walter Marshall, The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification, 1692

[6] 2Tim. 3:5

[7] James Moffatt’s New Testament

[8] Ibidem

[9] Ecclesiastical History, 2.23

[10] James 5:8, 9

[11] James 3:1-12

A Brief Survey of James, Part 1

A Brief Survey of James, Part 1

Author:

In the Greek, his name is Ἰάκωβος, Jacob, rather than James.  The name change occurred as the New Testament underwent translations from Greek to Latin and Latin to English.  In fact, all individuals in the New Testament named James are actually Ἰάκωβος in Greek.

The author of this Epistle was without doubt James, the brother of our Lord.  There are three distinguished persons in the New Testament who bear the name James: James, the son of Zebedee, John’s brother – one of the Twelve; James the son of Alphaeus, also of the Twelve, called James the Less[i]; and James, called by Paul in Galatians "the brother of our Lord,”[ii] the man who appears in Acts 15 as wielding a paramount influence in the church at Jerusalem. The epistle could not have been written by James, the brother of John, for he was martyred by Herod[iii] before its date. Therefore the authorship must be ascribed either to James, the son of Alphaeus, or to James, "the Lord's brother."

From the earliest days of the Church the latter has been agreed upon as the author.  All known facts about him point to this conclusion as well.  He was a permanent resident of Jerusalem and preeminent in the church.  He was the chief figure in the Jerusalem Council: it was his judgment that once for all settled the circumcision debate.  St. Paul calls him one of the, “pillars of the church.”[iv]  It is for these reasons that he could authoritatively address the entire community of Jewish Christians scattered around the Roman world.

Some commentators have assumed the author to be James, the son of Alphaeus, a cousin of the Lord, instead of a brother.  This theory usually hinges upon the supposed “perpetual virginity” of Mary.  If she had no other children than Christ, his “brothers” could not be literal siblings.  There are four facts that militate against this theory:

• It is highly unlikely Clopas’ wife was Mary’s sister – this would entail two sisters with the same name.  John names two pairs: Mary and her sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas.  The sister, no doubt, was Salome, John’s mother.  Hence, John was Mary’s nephew.  Since at the times of the Crucifixion none of Christ’s brothers were believers, it is in this connection that Jesus assigns the care of his mother to John instead of his own brothers.
• We are explicitly told that Jesus’ brothers were not believers.  Consequently none of them could have been of the number of the apostles.
• They are never called cousins of Jesus nor is there any proof that the Greek word which designates them as "brethren" is ever used in the sense of cousins in the New Testament.
• After the Resurrection, when these brothers had become believers, they are distinguished from the Twelve[v].  This fact cannot be explained if at least two out of four of them were of the Twelve.  It is true that in Galatians 1:19 James is spoken of as an apostle, yet neither he nor Paul – the greatest apostle, was of the Twelve.

These facts seem to me to clearly indicate that James, Christ’s brother, the author of the Epistle, was not one of the Twelve and was a brother to our Lord in the sense that he was a child of Mary.

James’ prominence in the early church can be seen in the following references: Acts 12:7; 15:19; 21:18; Galatians 1:19; 2:9; 2:12.  The New Testament is silent concerning his later history but Josephus, the Jewish historian says “[Ananias] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.”[vi]

Date:

The date of the Epistle is difficult to ascertain.  Based on internal evidence most commentators place it in the period between Paul’s two imprisonments in Rome – i.e., about A.D. 62.  Since James resided in Jerusalem, this would be the place of writing.  Nevertheless, there are a few commentators who place the Epistle as early as 39 A.D.  The main internal support for this view comes from the fact that James calls the saints’ assembly a sunagwgh instead of an ekklhsia.  The reasoning employed is that the saints had not yet been completely expelled from the synagogues yet and forced thereby to form their own congregations henceforth called churches.

Canonicity:

In the early Patristic age there was some questions as to its canonicity, but these passed away rather soon.  Clement of Rome quotes it.[vii]  Hermas quotes 4:7.[viii]  Irenaeus is thought to refer to 2:23.[ix]  According to Cassiodorus, Clement of Alexandria commented on it.[x]  Ephraim the Syrian quotes 5:1.[xi]  A strong proof of its authenticity is that it formed part of the old Syriac version, which contains no other of the disputed books, except Hebrews.[xii]

James’ inspiration as an apostle is expressly referred to in Acts 15:19, 28: "My sentence is…It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us."  His ecclesiastical authority is implied by the deference paid to him by Peter and Paul.[xiii]  The Lord had appeared specially to him after the resurrection.[xiv]  Peter in his First Epistle (universally from the first received as canonical) implicitly confirms the inspiration of James's Epistle by incorporating with his own inspired writings no less than ten passages from James.  The "apostle of the circumcision," Peter, and the first bishop of Jerusalem, would naturally have much in common.[xv]  The fact that it was written in the purest Greek would seem to show that it was intended not only for the Jews at Jerusalem, but also for the Hellenistic Jews.

Audience:

The recipients of this letter were the Jewish Christians who were part of the Diaspora, i.e., the Dispersion of the Jews throughout the world.  This would seem to explain why, when in Chapter 2, in his discourse against favoritism, he calls their assembly a συναγωγὴ - a synagogue, instead of ἐκκλησία.

Object:

James’ object was to enforce the practical duties of the Christian life.  This largely accounts for the Epistle’s conspicuous lack of doctrinal statements.  The Epistles of Paul are usually an even balance: one half theology, one half application.  For instance, the first three chapters of Ephesians are purely theological pronouncements.  Chapters 4-6 however are the application of the foregoing doctrines.  Galatians is divided the same way as well.  This letter however contains 100% application, insinuating that the theology James is applying was familiar enough to his audience that he could forego repeating it.  He warns against several Jewish vices:

·         Formalism, which made the service of God consist in washings and outward ceremonies.  He therefore reminds them (1:27) that it consists rather in active love and purity.

·         Fanaticism, which, under the cloak of religious zeal, was tearing Jerusalem in pieces (1:20).

·         Fatalism, which threw its sins on God (1:13).

·         Callousness, which crouched before the rich (2:2).

·         Falsehood, which had made words and oaths play-things (3:2-12);

·         Partisanship (3:14);

·         Evil speaking (4:11);

·         Boasting (4:16);

·         Oppression (5:4).

The grand lesson he teaches them as Christians is patience:

• patience in trial (1:2),
• patience in good works (1:22-25),
• patience under provocation (3:17),
• patience under oppression (5:7),
• patience under persecution (5:10);
• the ground of their patience is that the coming of the Lord draws near, which will right all wrong (5:8).

---

[i] Mark 15:40

[ii] Galatians 1:19

[iii] Acts 12:2

[iv] Galatians 2:9

[v] Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5

[vi] Antiquities 20.9.1

[vii] Clement of Rome, 1 Corinth XI

[viii] Hermas, The Shepherd

[ix] Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.16.2

[x] Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary: Introduction to James

[xi] Ephraim the Syrian, Against the Greeks

[xii] Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary: Introduction to James

[xiii] Acts 12:17; 21:18; Galatians 1:19; 2:9

[xiv] 1Cor. 15:7

[xv] Compare James 1:1 with 1 Peter 1:1; James 1:2 with 1 Peter 1:6; 4:12, 13; James 1:11 with 1 Peter 1:24; James 1:18 with 1 Peter 1:3; James 2:7 with 1 Peter 4:14; James 3:13 with 1 Peter 2:12; James 4:1 with 1 Peter 2:11; James 4:6 with 1 Peter 5:5, 6; James 4:7 with 1 Peter 5:6, 9; James 4:10 with 1 Peter 5:6; James 5:20 with 1 Peter 4:6

The Superiority of Expository Preaching

The Superiority of Expository Preaching

The unfolding of Your word gives light; it gives understanding to the simple. Psalm 119:130 (NASB)

“The end of all preaching is to bring men under the influence of God’s Word; and nothing seems so likely to make men understand the Word as lectures in which the Word is explained.  It was so in Chrysostom’s days; it ought to be so again.  The idea, no doubt, like every good theory, may be easily ridden to death; and I believe that with ignorant, semi-heathen congregations, a short pithy text often does more good than a long passage expounded. But I have no doubt of the immense value of expository preaching, when people will bring their Bibles to the service, and accompany the preacher as he travels on, or go home to their Bibles after the service, and compare what they have heard with the written Word.” Excerpt from J.C. Ryle’s “Estimate of Manton” in volume 1 of the works of Thomas Manton

Expository preaching is superior to all other homiletic methods.  We take as our theme this passage from Psalm 119:130 because expository preaching is nothing other that “unfolding” God’s Word, and we are told here that it is this which gives light and understanding.

The Hebrew word rendered “unfolding” in the NASB is the word pethach, which means “opening” in a figurative sense.  This is why other versions render the word as “entrance.”  This is an acceptable rendering so long as we keep in mind that it is meant in a figurative sense that implies disclosure rather than a door.  Other forms of the word’s root, pathach, mean to open wide (literal or figurative); specifically to loosen, begin, plough, carve: - appear, break forth, draw (out), let go free, (en-) grave (-n), loose (self), (be, be set) open (-ing), put off, ungird, unstop, have vent.  And so we can clearly see the point being made by the Psalmist.  It is only by opening, unfolding and drawing out the meaning of God’s Word that there can be light and understanding.

There are other passages of Scripture that confirm this view.  In Luke 24:27, 31, it was Jesus’ expounding of the Scriptures that opened the eyes of the disciples’ understanding.  Acts 17:3 has Paul opening the Scriptures and it was this opening which brought many of his listeners to saving faith.  Nehemiah 8:8 says, “They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people could understand what was being read.”

Expository preaching takes the actual words of Scripture and sets about to explain them from their context and how all of Scripture teaches the same things. The Reformers and Puritans were truly models for great preaching. If you have ever read a Puritan sermon, you’ll know what I mean. If you haven’t, you should!

The Puritan model is best seen in the sermons of Thomas Manton and John Flavel. First the text is read. Next, some details of the context and background are given. The text then is broken up into its various clauses and phrases, with all the ramifications explained. This leads to the statement of the passage’s “Doctrine,” i.e., the theological truth which the passage teaches. The body of the sermon is spent expounding this doctrine through references to many other parts of Scripture. The Puritans, like the Reformers before them, believed in the principle that Scripture interprets itself (Scriptura Intrapratatum). This is why they always interpreted a given passage in the Bible in the light of the rest of the Bible. They never came upon a verse and thought, “Wow! This is a new doctrine taught nowhere else in the Bible." If you think that a passage is teaching a doctrine taught nowhere else in the Bible, you've misinterpreted it.

Finally, the Puritan sermon always ended with pastoral, or practical applications of the doctrinal truths learned. Puritan sermons were almost always split right down the middle: about half doctrinal and half pastoral application.

This is truly the biblical model. Paul’s epistles have this same quality. About midway through you will find a “therefore” that begins a section of applying the doctrinal truths expounded on in the first part of the letter. There is no superior method of preaching.

Appended are three principles that are a great guide in biblical interpretation. I found these in my notes. I didn’t formulate them. If anyone recognizes them and knows the source, let me know. I want to give credit where credit is due.

3 Principles of Interpretation 

• We must aim to allow the Scriptures, in whole and in each of their parts, to function as God intends.
• The function or meaning of any individual passage of Scripture should first be sought by attempting to determine what its human author intended in writing it. 

• Ultimately, our interpretation of any particular biblical passage must acknowledge and take into account the fundamental unity and consistency of God’s whole written word. 

A Brief Survey of Ecclesiastes, Part 2

A Brief Survey of Ecclesiastes, Part 2

Canonicity:

The canonicity of the book was, however, long doubtful (Yad. iii. 5; Meg. 7a), and was one of the matters on which the school of Shammai took a more stringent view than the school of Hillel.  It was finally settled "on the day whereon Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah was appointed head of the assembly."  Attempts were made to render it apocryphal on the ground of its not being inspired, or of its internal contradictions, or of a tendency that it displayed toward heresy — that is, Epicureanism.  But these objections were satisfactorily answered.  It was assumed that Solomon had taken the name "Qohelet," just as he had taken the name "Agur" (Prov. 30:1), as a collector; and probably the Septuagint rendering represents a theory that the name contained an allusion to I Kings 8:1 where Solomon is said to have gathered an assembly.  Along these same lines Rev. Scott wrote, “all of them [the “Epicurean-sounding” maxims] admit of a sound and useful interpretation, when accurately investigated, and when the general scope of the book is attended to.”[1]

There are no direct quotations of Ecclesiastes in the New Testament, however Matthew 23:23, R. V., "These ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone," seems clearly a reminiscence of Eccl. 7:18.  Holden gives a list from the German critic Carpzov of texts with more or less resemblance, but few of them carry any weight of parallelism or reference.

The “corrupt propensities,” as Bridges calls them, of the writer do not influence in deteriorating its real authority.  For this depends not upon the instrumentality employed but upon the dignity of its great author and the truthfulness of the testimony.  There is, for this reason, no ground to question that this book was given  - like every other part of Scripture – by inspiration of God.

Purpose:

The Book’s manifest purpose is to show that all is vanity unless one, “fears God, and keeps His commandments” (12:13).  The book is a record of Solomon’s desperate journey.  It was a maddening period in his adult life when life lost its luster.  He questions everything in life—values, God, ethics, etc.  He sought to live without God.  The goal of the journey is to show that you cannot live a significant, worthwhile, meaningful life without a personal relationship with God.  When you leave God out, life is a repetitious cycle of events, which neither possesses nor gives lasting value or satisfaction (1:2-11).  Solomon’s states clearly that significance in life can be found only in a trusting relationship with God:  Everything else is vanity.  If it is “under the sun” it will not satisfy because it is life apart from God.  Jesus asked, “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?  Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?”[2]  An adequate worldview must recognize that God is the highest value of all.  Life has a purpose and God will judge every deed.  Incidentally, this book is a testimony to the great doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints.  Despite the depths of Solomon’s fall, he was not left by God to die in that state.  Rather, like all the elect he was recalled and died securely in the grace of God that elected him to salvation before the foundations of the earth. 

Theme:

“Vanity of vanities, All is vanity” (1:2).  “Wine, women and song” is the experience of living on the edge of reality without God.  Understanding of life begins with a healthy fear of God.  Elohim is used forty times in this book.  He is the total sovereign provider over all His creation.  The Preacher repeatedly admonishes men to “fear God” (3:14; 5:6; 8:12; 12:13).  Ecclesiastes reports the results of a diligent quest for purpose, meaning and satisfaction in human life.  The Preacher poignantly sees the emptiness and futility of power, popularity, prestige and pleasure apart from God.  The word vanity appears 37 times to express the many things that cannot be understood about life.  When earthly goals and ambitions are pursued as ends in themselves, they lead to disappointment and frustration.  Life "under the sun" (used 29 times) seems to be filled with inequities, uncertainties, changes in fortune, and violations of justice.

Yet Ecclesiastes does not give an answer to atheism or skepticism; God is referred to throughout.  In fact, it claims that the search for man’s summum bonum must end in God.  Satisfaction in life can be found only by looking beyond this world.  Ecclesiastes gives an analysis of negative themes but it also develops the positive theme of overcoming the vanities of life by fearing a God who is good, just, and sovereign (Eccl. 12:13, 14).

Style:

Ecclesiastes belongs to the Hebrew Wisdom literature.  The Hebrew in Ecclesiastes is unique to any other Hebrew from any other period.  It has some Aramaic and Persian words.  Archer says, “The reason for the peculiar vocabulary, syntax, and style seems to be found in the literary genre to which Ecclesiastes belonged – the genre of the philosophical discourse. If this particular genre was first developed in Phoenicia, and if Solomon was well read in this whole area of wisdom literature (cf. 1 Kings 4:30-34), there is every reason to believe that he deliberately chose to write in the idiom and style that had already been established for that genre.”[3]  It seems reasonably obvious that we are dealing here with a conventional style peculiar to the particular genre to which Ecclesiastes belonged.   It so happens that in the case of the precise genre to which Ecclesiastes belongs, we have nothing else that has survived from Hebrew literature.  There are some remarkable similarities between some passages in Ecclesiastes and the corresponding sections in the Proverbs.  He writes as a philosopher, and a keen observer of world history, current events and personal experiences.

Christ in Ecclesiastes:

Ecclesiastes convincingly portrays the emptiness and perplexity of life without a relationship with the Lord.  Each person has eternity in his heart (Eccl. 3:11), and only Christ can provide ultimate satisfaction, joy and wisdom.  Man’s summum bonum is found in the "one Shepherd" (Eccl. 12:11) who offers abundant life (John 10:9, 10).   In a striking passage from his commentary on Ecclesiastes, Gregory of Nyssa sees Qohelet as a reference, or perhaps a type of Christ.  He writes: “We must first consider the inscription of this book: ‘The words of Ecclesiastes, son of David, king of Israel in Jerusalem.’ The law of Moses is read in every church along with the prophets, psalms, historical books and other Old and New Testament readings. How, then, does this special inscription enhance Ecclesiastes, and what are we to make of it? …Perhaps this inscription refers to the leader of the Church [ekklesia]. The true Ecclesiastes [Qoheleth, Christ] gathers into one assembly those persons who often have been scattered and frequently deceived. Who could he be except the true king of Israel to whom Nathaniel said, "You are the son of God and the king of Israel" (Jn 1.49)?  If these words pertain to the king of Israel, the Son of God, as the Gospel says, then he is called Ecclesiastes. We will not deviate from the inscription's meaning provided that we learn about him who firmly establishes the Church through the Gospel and to whom these words apply. "The words of Ecclesiastes, son of David" [1.1]: thus Matthew begins his gospel with the name David and calls him Lord.[4]

Conclusion:

No better conclusion of the book can be given than Solomon’s own: The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person (12:13).  Everything apart from God is futile.  Augustine said, “Thou hast made us for Thyself and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in Thee.”[5]  When a person begins to grow spiritually, he realizes that the former way of life and the worldview that results from it no longer suffices for the new manner of living that has come to be.  In other words, what we once valued is no longer deemed to be so valuable.  The book of Ecclesiastes clearly provides expression for such a recognition. 

Solomon explored every visible realm of stimulation in a carefully controlled environment and was still unsatisfied.  Only God satisfies our deepest needs in life.  Everything else is “vanity."

---

[1] Preface to Ecclesiastes

[2] Matthew 16:26, NASB 1995

[3] Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties

[4] Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on Ecclesiastes

[5] Confessions 1.1